IPRA Global Conference‘Peace and Justice in a Globalized World: Opportuniti es & Challenges’

Tsu City, Mie University, Japan, 24-28 November 2012

© Hans Günter Brauch , Chairman, Peace Re-search and European Security Studies (AFES-PRESS)

Editor, Hexagon Series on Human, Environmental Security and PeaceEditor, SpringerBriefs in Environment, Security, Development & Peace

Security and Peace Impacts of the Climate Paradox:Assessing the Hobbesian Climate Change & Security Di scourse

Ecology and Peace CommissionSaturday, 24 November 2012, 16:20-18:20

Session 2: Sustainability Transition and Sustainabl e Peace

Contents

1. Introduction: Two Alternative Discourses2. First Discourse: Securitization of Climate Change

3. Climate Change & Security Nexus in Social Sciences

4. Alternative Discourse: Proactive Policies to a Fourth Sustainability Revolution & for a Sustainable Peace

5. Emergence of the Alternative Discourse

6. 7 Dimensions of Debate on Sustainability Transition7. Goal of the STSP Project

8. Conclusions

1. Introduction: Two Alternative Discourses

• Reactive policies and scientific discourse:Continuation of present trends of anthropogenic Cli-mate Change: may lead to severe security implica-tions for international, national & human security, espec. to climate-induced migration, crises, conflictsor: climate change as a threat mulitplier!

• Proactive policies & scientific discourse:Strategies of long-term transformative change towardssustainabile development (sustainability transition), especially in those sectors (energy, transportation, housing etc.) or: climate change as a threat minimizer!

1.1. Report of UN-Sec-General(11.9.2009)

2. First Discourse: Securitization of Climate Chang eThree security policy debates

Climate change & internat. security discourse– UN (17 April 2007): FM M. Beckett, UK presidency– EU (2008): EC & Council Study & roadmap process– UN GA (June 2009) Res., Report by Sec. General

Climate change & national security discourse:- US studies: CNA, CSIS, NIC (CIA), NSS 2010

Climate change & human security discourse- IHDP (GECHS): Lonergan & Brklacich (chairnen)

- 2005: conference in Norway on Cliamte change and human security

- HSN (Canada was a co-founder & a major sponsor)- 2007/2008: Greek HSN presidency

-2011-2014: IPCC, WG II, chapter on human security

3. Climate Change & Security Nexus in Social Sciences

Four Schools– Dramatizers: Climate wars– Sceptics: lack of research (PRIO)– Empiricists: PEISOR Model – Trend & future scenarios

Two Approaches• Policy & Scenario analysis Causal

analysis– Natural phenomena -> migration,

crises, conflicts (violence)•2nd phase: Homer-Dixon, Bächler•4th phase: Oswald – Brauch - Dalby

• Discourse analysis: climate change– International security– National security– Environmental security– Human security

Objects of Security Analysis (Securitization)

• Physical Effects: e.g. temp, rise• Impacts: Sectors & Regions• Societal Effects (migration,

crises, conflictsWhether they pose:• Objective Security Dangers• Subjective Security Concerns

4. Alternative Discourse: Proactive Policies to a Fourth Sustainability

Revolution & for a Sustainable Peace• Mindset of ‘business-as usual’ and the cornucopian vision

are mental obstacles that restrained political willingness toward long-term transformation of economic, social & political system.

• Radical climate skeptics portrayed climate change as a major threat to the American way of life and jobs. Ultra conservative climate skeptical movements to attack & delegitimize the IPCC contradict the American optimism in scientific progress.

• The necessary long-term transformation and the sustainability transition (Grin/Rotmanns/Schot 2010) require in the USA and Canada a fundamental change of their dominant worldview, consumerist culture, values, belief systems, and of the attitudes & behavior of the people and fundamental transformation of the energy system aiming at a progressive decarbonization.

• This challenges powerful sectors of the economy, the interests of business groups and also of the trade unions representing these old economic sectors.

4.1. Coping Strategies: Business-as-Usual

• Instant Response: Discredit the message & attack the messenger: 2009: Attack on IPCC

• Coping with Climate Change Impacts:– Market will provide means for coping with physical

climate change effects: Washington neoliberal consens.

– Military Protection: Adjust military strategies, mis-sions and tools to be able to operate under conditions of dangerous climate change („militarization“): Hobbesian

– Develop the technologies: Geo-engineering schemes, strategy of energy independence: Cornucopian

• No Need for a Sustainability Revolution

4.2. Business-as-Usual: Hobbesian World• Business-as-usualin a Hobbesian worldwhere economic and

strategic interests and behaviour prevail leading to a major crisis of humankind, in inter-state relations and destroying the Earth as the habitat for humans and ecosystems putting the survival of the vulnerable at risk.

• In this vision of cornucopian perspectives prevail that suggest primarily technical fixes (geo-engineering, increase in energy efficiency or renewables), defence of economic, strategic and national interests with adaptation strategies that are in the interest of and affordable for the ‘top billion’ of OECD countries in a new geopolitical framework, possibly based on a condominium of a fewmajor countries.

• This vision with minimal reactive adaptation and mitigation strategies will increase the probability of a ‘dangerous climate change’ or catastrophic GECwith both linear and chaotic changes in the climate system and their socio-political consequences that represent a high-risk approach.

4.3. Fourth Sustainability Revolution

• 2nd vision for a transformationof global cultural, environmental, economic (produc-tive and consumptive patterns) and political (with regard to human & interstate) relations

• In the alternative vision of a comprehensive transformation a sustainable perspectivehas to be developed and implemented into effective new strategies and policies with different goals and means based on global equity and social justice.

4.4. Alternative Vision• The alternative sustainability perspective requires a change in culture

(thinking on the human-nature interface), worldviews (thinking on the systems of rule, e.g. democracy vs. autocracy and on domestic priorities and policies, interstate relations),mindsets (strategic perspectives of policy-makers)and new forms of national and global governance.

• This alternative vision refers to the need for a “new paradigm for global sustainability” (Clark/Crutzen/Schellnhuber 2004), for a “transition to [a] much more sustainable global society”, aimed at peace, freedom, material well-being and environmental health. Changes in technology and management systems alone will not be sufficient, but “significant changes in governance, institutions and value systems” are needed, resulting in a fourth major transformation after “the stone age, early civilization and the modern era”. These alternative strategies should be “more integrated, more long-term in outlook, more attuned to the natural dynamics of the Earth System and more visionary”

4.5. Policy Response – Four Actors: State, Society, Economic Sector, Knowledge

• Key actors for development and implementation are:

– States: initiate, fund &implement strategies, policies & measures for a fourth sustainability revolution

– Society (parties, interest & pressure groups, NGOs, lobbyists): public awareness, discourse, social movements for sustainability transformation

– Economic sector & business community: develops and offers technical and economic solutions

– Knowledge (generation & education): source for innovation

4.6. Role of Knowledge• The fourth sustainability revolution must be knowledge-based!• The great transformation of the industrial revolution relied on

new innovative scientific and technological knowledge that is either the result of inventions or resulted in new innovations.

• Despite its already widely accepted objectives and the many viable low-carbon technologies already available to us, the transformation is a joint quest.

• Research and education are tasked with developing sustainable visions, in co-operation with policy-makers and citizens; identifying suitable development pathways, and realising low-carbon and sustainable innovations.

• The WBGU recommends intensified refocusing of national and international research towards the Great Transformation, and theprovision of the requisite funds. The relevant scientific findings must also be made accessible and understandable to allow people to accept the change and to participate democratically inthe transformation.

4.7. Four Knowledge-basedConcepts of for Alternative Vision

• Key concepts of the alternative vision of a new fourth ‘sustainable revolution’ are a radical change in culture, worldview, mindset and participative governance in the thinking and action on sustainability laying out an alternative development path with a total transformation of productive and consumptive processes aiming at equity, social justice, and solidarity with the most vulnerable and marginal people and the poorest countries.

• This lays out an alternative development path with a total transformation of productive and consumptive processesaiming at equity, social justice, and solidarity with the most vulnerable and marginal people and the poorest countries.

4.8. Worldview of Scientists• Worldviewconcept evolved from ‘Weltanschauung’ that refers

to a wide world perception and to a framework of ideas and beliefs through which individuals interpret the world &interact with it.

• A comprehensive worldview includes the fundamental cognitive orientation of a society, its values, emotions, and ethicsthrough which a society or a group interprets the world in which it interacts.

• Worldview is the fundamental cognitive, affective, & evaluative presupposition a group of people makes about the nature of things, & which they use to order their lives.

• The ‘construction of integrating worldviews’ begins from fragments of worldviews offered to us by different scientific disciplines and various systems of knowledge to which different perspectives contribute in the world’s cultures.

• Gert Krell used this concept for distinguishing among several macro-theoretical approaches in international relations.

4.9. Mindset of Policymakers• The concept of mindset includes a fixed mental attitude or disposition

that predetermines a person’s responses to and interpretations of situations by referring to different patterns of perceiving and reasoning.

• Fisher used it as ‘cultural lenses’ that filter our view of and reaction to the world. With regard to the ‘Fourth Sustainable Revolution’ this concept refers to a discussion of a post-carbon society, where solidarity, equity, and social justice are the key drivers instead of the maximization of profits and the destruction of the Earth withoutthinking of the next generations or of the collapse of ecosystems.

• Ken Booth mindsets “freeze international relations into crude images, portray its processes as mechanistic responses of power and characterize other nations as stereotypes”. Many mindsets have survived the fundamental global contextual change of 1989/1990, as the Cold War “exists as our living past, and it exerts a powerful presence by being both remembered and forgotten in complex ways”.

5. Emergence of Alternative Discourse

• Research & Dialogue Project: SustainabilityTransition and Sustainable Peace (STSP)

• Second debate is partly policy driven, by debate on a greeneconomy that has been launched by UNEP, OECD and bydifferent DGs of the European Commission.

• Scientific discourse on sustainability transition evolved– after conference in Amsterdam (2009); Lund (2011), Copenhagen (2012) – Sustainability Transitions Research Network (STRN)– journal on Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transition (EIST) – Routledge Book Series in Sustainability Transitions (since 2010).

• This new project tries to link this emerging debate with th eexperience of international relations and environment, security, development and peace (ESDP) studies byaddressing possible impacts of both alternative policytrends for international peace and security.

5.1. Past Transitions & War/Peace• All three technical revolutions (longterm transformatio ns):

– the first agricultural revolution (10.000 to 6.000 years ago),– the second industrial revolution (1750-1890/1914), and – the third revolution of communication, transportation and information

(CTI) technologies (since 1890 or 1920) ( ‘second industrial revolution’) have resulted in a higher and more violent level of warfare and have thusimpacted negatively on international peace and security.

This experience raises several new key research questions : • Will the suggested fourth sustainability revolution lead to new

multiple and potentially violent conflicts within and amongcountries?May the suggested sustainability transition in the energy sectorreduce the potential of resource-related violent conflicts and wars?

• From a scientific and conceptual perspective, which strategies, policies and measures may be needed to combine the proposedprocess of a long-term transition of the scientific institutions and their new knowledge, of societies and the business communityand economic sectors as well as new forms of governance withthe goal of a sustainable peace?

5.2. Political Urgency and Research Agenda:Towards a Fourth Sustainability Revolution

Glooming Prospects for Post-Kyoto Regime: Paralysis• Prospects for Post-Kyoto climate regime at COP 17 in Durban are low

• At present it becomes increasingly unlikely to realize the 2°C world

• Probability of ‘dangerous climate change’ increases dramatically

• This increases the probability that thresholds in the climate system may be crossed, that tipping points may be unleashed, triggeringcascading processes as: ‘Arabellion’ and ‘Fukushima nuclear disaster’

Business-as-usual paradigm prevails in politics & media• In light of global financial crisis, the sense of urgency for proactive

climate action has declined since 2009 prior to Copenhagen (COP 15)

• The US government is paralyzed due to ideological confrontation within the US Congress and between the Senate & the House

• Lack of urgency among BASIC countries to accept commitments.

5.4. Implications for the Social Sciences• The challenge of research on the societal impacts of global environ-

mental change in the Anthropocenerequires an understanding of the observed and projected changeswithin the earth systemand its physical and societal impacts for the human systems, i.a. an analysis of earth systems sciences.

• This requires increased funding for multi-, inter- and transdisciplinaryresearch to address the ‘consilience’ of the sustainability paradigm.

• Research on sustainability transitionmay not be limited to a research agenda of the priorities, pathways & strategies towards sustainability

• For sociology and political scienceit requires to address ‘cascading processes’ in the ‘world risk society’ stimulated by the ‚principle of precaution through prevention‘(Ulrich Beck, 2011).

• For international relations, security and peace researchthis requires conceptual research on the conditions and possibilities of a sustainable peace as a global political framework for a sustainable transition.

5.5. Goals, Objectives, Thesis & Structure‘Sustainability transition’ research has evolved sinc e 2004:• Clark, Crutzen, Schellnhuber: ‘Science for Global Sustainability’

(2004).• Dutch Knowledge Network on Systems Innovation &Transition

– complex systems analysis, – socio-technological and a governance perspective”.

• Relies on research that has evolved since the 1990s when “in-novation & technology scholars … started to address environ-mental innovation and sustainability transitions more explicitly: – technological innovation systems approach (TIS) and– multi‐level perspective (MLP) approaches has contributed.

• ‘Sustainability Transitions Research Network’ (STRN, 2009/2010), • ‘Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transitions’ (2010), • Journal ‘Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions’

(2011)• WBGU Report on a ‘Social Contract for Sustainability’ (2011)

5.6. WBG (2011): New Social Contract for a „Global Transformation“

• WBGU explains reasons for a ‚post fossil-nuclear metabolism‘concluding that the transition to sustainability is achievable.

A New Social Contract• Transformation into a sustainable societyrequires a modern framework for nine billion

people for living with each other, and with nature: a new Contrat Social.

• This virtual social contract relies on each individual’s self-concept as a responsible global citizen. This contract is also a contract between generations.

• Science plays an essential role here, as for the first time in history, a profound transition is not caused by imminent necessity, but by precaution and well-founded insight. In this respect, the social contract also represents a special agreement between science and society.

• A new culture of democratic participation through the appointment of ombudsmen …to ensure the protection of future-oriented interests. Sustainability-oriented approach can be given a secure, firm footing through the inclusion of ‘climate protection’ in the constitution as a national objective, and through establishing a climate protection law.

• A low-carbon transformation can only be successful if it is a common goal, pursued simultaneously in many of the world’s regions.

• Therefore, the social contract also encompasses new ways of shaping global political decision-making and cooperation beyond the nation state.

5.7. Two Parallel Discourses on ST• The parallel discourse on ‘sustainability transition’ addresses

both the causes and impacts of GEC and GCC by facing & coping with both and avoiding the projected societal conse-quences of dangerous or catastrophic climate change and of possible tipping points in the climate system.

• From this perspective the goal of ‘sustainable development’ and the perspective on ‘sustainability transition’ refer to a much wider research agenda than the relatively narrow fo cus on environmental and technological innovations that is a primary focus of many researchers in the STRN.

• The process of ‘transition’ refers to multiple long-term evolutio-nary and revolutionary transformative changes that point to fivedifferent historical times, with different transformative results

• These must be distinguished since they have different transformative results. We may address them with four hypotheses:

5.8. Four Hypotheses• We are in the midst of a global transition in earth history from

the ‘Holocene’, to the ‘Anthropocene’ that began with human interventions into the earth system and that has resulted in a rapid increase in GHG emissions in the atmosphere.

• The impacts of the grand transformations of the first and second industrial revolution have resulted in a complex global environmental change and in anthropogenically-induced climate change, besides as well as the increasing destruction of the biodiversity. natural climatic variations. This has resulted in an exponentially growing accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere this has also affected almost all environmental services.

• The societal impacts of four physical effects of ‘anthropogenic global climate change’ and of biodiversity loss may result in major international, national, and human security d angers .

• Since 2005 an alternative discourse on ‘sustainabil ity transi-tions’ or on ‘transitions to sustainable and resilient development’ has begun to evolve . It addresses new directions in the ‘study of long-term transformative change’ that also needs to focus on resilient societies.

5.9. Climate Change & Sustainability Transition

• The emerging scientific debate on ‘sustainability transition’addresses the many scientific, societal, economic, political, and cultural needs to reduce GHG emissions.

• These cannot be achieved simply by legally binding quantitative emission limitation and reduction obligations (QELROs), as in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol (1997).

• These have so far failed to achieve their proclaimed stated aims during the past two decades because of a lack of political will and capability to implement these legal obligations and policy declarations.

• A continuation of the prevailing world view and ‘business-as-usual’ mindset may lead to ‘dangerous’ (+4�°C world) or even ‘catastrophic’ (4-6°world) climate changes and major huma n catastrophes during this century if the global temperature should rises by 4-6�°C above the pre-industrial average by end of the 21st century.

6. Seven Dimensions of Debate on Sustainability Transition

In a talk at the first sustainability transition an d sustainable peace (STSP) workshop I distinguished among 7 dimensions of ST

<http://www.afes-press-books.de/html/sustainability_workshop_overview.htm>

1. Temporal Dimension of Sustainability Transition2. Spatial Dimension of Sustainability Transition3. Scientific Dimension of Sustainability Transition4. Societal Dimension of Sustainability Transition5. Economic Dimension of ST6. Political Dimension of ST7. Cultural Dimension of ST

7. Goal of the STSP Project• Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace Pro ject (STSP) was

launched after the project on the Reconceptualization of Security (2004-11): 270 peer reviewed book chapters in vol. 3, 4 , 5 in the Hexagon Book Series on Human, Environmental Security & Peace (HESP) as Global Human and Environmental Security Handbook for the A nthropocene .

• This new international research and dialogue project on Sustainability Transition and Sustain-able Peace Project (STSP) addresses key scientific and political challenges of the 21st ce ntury:

• Relative failure of international efforts to addres s, face & cope with impacts of global environmental change & global cli mate change that have resulted in a

• ‘climate paradox’ that major industrialized and demo cratic countries were unable or unwilling to comply with their globa l legally binding and declaratory commitments they adopted during the fir st Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War :– United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD) – Rio-Declaration on Environment and Development – Agenda 21

7.1 Scientific Response to Policy Failures

This failure is reflected in• the inability of the international community represented by the world of states

to agree on a legally binding follow-up to Kyoto Protocol by the end if 2012;• in the relative failure of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC at

– COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark (2009);– COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico (2010);– COP 17 in Durban, South Africa (2011);

• in the failure of most G8 countries to initiate measures to implement their announced goal (2007-2011) to reduce their GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 that decided on 18-19 May 2012 at their summit in the USA not to repeat in their Camp David Declaration previous commitments;

• in the failure of the G20 meeting in Los Cabos (Mexico) on 18-19 June 2012 to adopt any legally binding agreement on financing climate change activities in developing countries in their G20 Leaders Declaration

• in the failure of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro on 20-22 June 2012 to adopt any new and legally binding decisions at besides the declaratory statement: Outcome of the Conference: The future we want

7.2. Two Alternative Visions & Strategies

• This sceptical diagnosis refers to 2 different approa-ches on international security & environmental policy:– a business-as usual policy that the market, economic

initiatives and military power will be able to cope with its consequences;

– a willingness to move towards a fourth sustainability revolution that requires multiple efforts to move towards a long-term transition towards sustainability.

• This project tries to link this emerging debate with the experience of international relations and environment, security, development and peace (ESDP) studies by addressing possible impacts of both alternative policy trends for international peace and security

8. Conclusions: G-20 Climate Performance• Climate performance of G20 countries since 1990 has been unsatisfactory.

Only Russia and EU27 countries met their GHG reduction obligations (KP) • Of Annex B countries Australia, Canada and the USA have been laggards. • The USA never ratified the KP, • Canada withdrew while Australia and Japan still adhere to these obligations.• The G8 have repeatedly declared to reduce their GHG emissions by 80%

without agreeing on the base year: 1990 for the EU27 and 2005 for the USA and Japan (?).

• EU launched its Energy Roadmap 2050: aims at 80-95% CO2 reduction, • No similar commitments exist for Russia, Japan, Canada and USA. • Some Non-Annex B G20 countries have made reduction pledges for 2020

under the Cancun Agreement, • No BASIC countries pledged to stabilize their GHG emissions on the level of

1990 or 2050. The major change from 1990 to 2020 will occur between the Annex-1 and Non-Annex 1 countries: while the

• share of the global GHG emissions of the Annex-1 countries is projected to decline from above 50% to more than 1/3

• that of the Non-Annex 1 countries is projected to rise from just below 50% to nearly 2/3. This trend is reflected in the global population projections for the G-20 until 2030, 2050 and 2100.

8.1. Need for a Fundamental Change• Changes in the global GHG emissions may not be achieved by relying on a

business-as-usual approach in science, government, the business community and in society. Adhering to a such an approach may increase the prospects that a dangerous or catastrophic climate change may trigger multiple international, national and human security consequences. Rather, a major change in GHG emissions requires strategies, policies and measures that aim at a ‘sustainability transition’ towards a low-carbon or green economy with a major reduction of hydrocarbon energy sources (coal, oil, gas) and a significant increase of renewables linked with significant energy efficiency improvements in all energy (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling), production (industry, agriculture) and consumption sectors. Such a ‘sustainability transition’ requires a fourfold approach linking the:– scientific dimension (a new scientific revolution towards sustainability that

requires a fundamental shift in the dominant scientific worldview);– societal and cultural dimension (changes in values, attitudes, culture,

worldviews, mindsets, and behavior);– economic dimension (energy sector, production and consumption patterns)

aiming at a progressively de-carbonized and partly dematerialized world, regional, national and local economy;

– political dimension (changes in governance processes at the local, national, regional and international level and in the national and international policy goals to be oriented at a sustainable peace).

8.2. ‘Sustainability Transition’: Major Challenge f or

Humankind during the 21st Century

• This process of a ‘sustainability transition’ is major challen-ge for humankind in 21st century in dealing with impacts of glo-bal environmental change (climate change, water, soil, biodiver-sity) during the Anthropocene eta of Earth history, humankind has entered with the first and second industrial revolutions.

• A ‘fourth sustainability revolution’ covering all four dimensions of a process of sustainability transition may avoid the prospects of major resource conflicts (on hydrocarbons after peak oil) andclimate-induced conflicts and wars and the needed cooperation may increase the prospects for a sustainable peace.

• First & second industrial revolutions caused first changes in science and technology (new scientific knowledge, inventions, innovations) – that resulted in an industrialization of warfare (World War I, World War II) that

required a total mobilizations of human and material resources.– The ‘great political transformation’ in the USA during t he 1940s from an

isolationist and pacifist orientation towards a global and interventionist worldview and mind-set in international relations and politics implied a fundamental change in the value base of the only remaining world power that was not affected by the fundamental peaceful change in world order after the end of the Cold War.

8.3 Learning lessons from previouslong-term transformative changes

All three technical revolutions: • the first agricultural revolution (10.000 to 6.000 years ago), • the second industrial revolution (1750-1890/1914), • third revolution of communi¬cation, transportation and information (CTI)

technologies (since 1890 or 1920) resulted in a more violent level of warfare and impacted negatively on international peace and security.

This experience raises several new key research que stions:• Will the suggested fourth sustainability revolution lead to new multiple and

potentially violent conflicts within and among countries? • May the suggested sustainability transition in the energy sector reduce the

potential of resource-related violent conflicts and wars? • From a scientific and conceptual perspective, which strategies, policies and

measures are needed to combine the proposed process of a long-term transition of the scientific institutions and their new knowledge, of societies and the business community as well as new forms of governance with the goal of a sustainable peace?

Thank youfor your attention!

This text is soon for download at:<http://www.afes-

press.de/html/download_hgb.html>

Send your comments to:Brauch@onlinehome.de

Hexagon Series: Volumes I-VIII

Forthcoming Volumes• Truong, Thanh-Dam; Bergh, S.I.;

Gasper, Des; Handmaker, J. (Eds.): Migration, Gender and Social Justice -Perspectives on Human Security. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 9 (Heidelberg – Dordrecht –London – New York: Springer, 2012).

• Czeslaw Mesjasz: Stability, Turbulence or Chaos? Systems Thinking and Theory and Policy of Security. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 10 (Berlin et al. Springer-Verlag, 2013).

• SpringerBriefs in Environ-ment, Security, Develop-ment and Peace (ESDP): Peer Reviewed Book Series

• Mely Caballero-Anthony, YounghoChang and Nur Azha Putra (Eds.) [Singapore]: Energy and Non-Traditional Security (NTS) in Asia. [ESDP] vol. 1 (Heidelberg – Dord-recht – London – New York: Springer-Verlag, 2012).

• Mely Caballero-Anthony, YounghoChang and Nur Azha Putra (Eds.) [Singapore]: Rethinking Energy Security in Asia: A Non-TraditionalView of Human Security. [ESDP] vol. 2 (Heidelberg – Dordrecht – London – New York: Springer-Verlag, 2012).

• 3 Philip Jan Schäfer [Germany]: Human and Water Security in Israel and Jordan. ESDP, vol. 3 (Heidelberg et al: Springer-Verlag, 2012).

• SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science & Practice (PSP)

• Subseries: Pioneers in Science and Practice – Texts and Protocols (PSP-TP)

• Arthur H. Westing [USA]: Arthur H. Westing: Pioneer on the Environmental Impact of War. PSP No. 1 – presented by Hans Günter Brauch (Heidelberg et al: Springer-Verlag, 2012).

• Vol. 2: Rodolfo Stavenhagen [Mexico]: Pioneer on Indigenous Rights. – presented by Ursula Oswald Spring (Heidelberg,2013).

• Vol. 3: Rodolfo Stavenhagen [Mexico]: The Emergence of Indigenous Peoples. (Heidelberg – et al: Springer-Verlag, 2013).

• Vol. 4: Rodolfo Stavenhagen [Mexico]: Peasants, Culture and Indigenous Peoples: Critical Issues. (Heidelberg et al.: Springer-Verlag, 2013).

• Vol.6: Dieter Senghaas [Germany]: Pioneer of Peace and Development Research.–presented by Michael Zürn (Heidelberg et al.: Springer-Verlag, 2013).